1947-05-27, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours 27 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BECKER-FREYSENG — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION — Continued
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in June 1942, during the course of the conference between Professor Hippke and Dr. Rascher did the names Dr. Jarisch, Dr. Holzloehner and Dr. Singer ever appear or ever come into the conversation?
A: I do not remember the name of Singer because he never played any part in air force research. However, the names Jarisch and Holzloehner were mentioned at least in my presence because both these names could be found on a list of those who had to lecture during the planned meeting about emergency sea matters. I never heard at a later date that Professor Singer in any way worked on the scientific cold questions.
Q: Now let us refer again, doctor, to document No. 283, that is a letter from Rascher to the Reichsfuehrer. It is on page 12 of English document bock No. 3. This letter, as you know is dated 15 June 1942 and reads as follows:
A: I may correct you, it is really June.
Q: I said June, I am sorry:
A few days ago I was ordered to a conference with the Inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, General Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Professor Dr. Hippke. When I told him you had not yet received the report concerning the experiments as a whole and you still had to give permission for the reporting of the results, he did not ask for any report. The Inspector was extraordinarily kind and asked me as liaison man with the SS to express to you, esteemed Reichsfuehrer, his private thanks for the experiments.
Now is it your contention Dr. Becker-Freyseng that this meeting here referred to by Rascher was the meeting between Rascher and Hippke at which you were present?
A: I would assume so, yes.
Q: Now the letter goes on to say, doctor:
At the same time he (which refers to General Oberstabsarzt Professor Hippke) asked for permission to carry out the cold and water experiments in Dachau and asked that the following be engaged in these experiments,
and therein we note three names, Jarisch, Holzloehner and Singer.
Now during the course of the conference did you hear or did the matter come up that it would be necessary to engage a pathologist to assist and collaborate with Rascher and Holzloehner or whomever was picked or chosen to work with Rascher?
A: No, a pathologist was not discussed in my presence.
Q: Well, now, as a medical man what would be the purpose for assigning a pathologist to this research detail?
A: The purpose for that may vary, because for experimental pathology a number of papers were written by me in collaboration with pathologists and I am therefore somewhat informed about this special form of pathology. I never heard that Professor Singer at any time concerned himself with cold questions. When I saw that document here for the first time I was very surprised. It says the name of Singer. At no time before had I seen that name in connection with cold or any other air force research work.
Q: What are the duties of a pathologist in German medicine?
A: The duties of the pathologist are extensive and varied. The main task of a pathologist is to search for the cause and the effect of the illness on the living organism. For instance, if a part of a bad tissue is being cut out during an operation and if the practicing physician wants to know whether there is cancer, this part is always sent to the pathologist. On the other hand, whenever any patient dies, an autopsy is very often being carried out in order to clearly find out the cause for the illness and the death.
I have already told you that modern pathology in particular performs a great number of experiments. For instance, animal experiments, and even after this letter it does not become apparent to me at all that Dr. Hippke at that time counted on death cases during these experiments just because he asked a pathologist to participate. It is quite possible that he mentioned this name of Singer to Rascher in order to get them into contact with one another since he knew perhaps, that Singer had particular information in that field but I know nothing about that personally.
Q: Then you exclude the possibility that Professor Hippke was fully aware of the fact that death did result from these experiments at Dachau and that it was necessary or would be necessary to have a pathologist on it so that he can perform an autopsy in order to determine the cause of death.
A: I cannot exclude that possibility because as a result of the files which I read and which were submitted during the trial of Milch regarding Professor Hippke, I can see Professor Hippke admitted that possibility which you just mentioned. However, I know that now. I did not know that at the time.
Q: Doctor, let us turn to document No. 286, which is Prosecution Exhibit 88, to be found on page 22 of the English. This is a research order on freezing to Holzloehner:
A: Yes, I have the document.
Q: Now we see your file notation, that is the number 55, and then arabic 2, Roman numeral II B, those are the file numbers of your office, is that right?
A: Since we are concerned with the year of 1942, this is the referat Anthony where I was working, that is correct.
Q: And at that time Anthony was referent and you were assistant referent?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Then is it true that this letter originated from Anthony's office?
A: Yes, it come from the referat.
Q: I see. Well now I note in the first paragraph after the salutation there is the following language:
The Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe has given order for research to the Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Professor Dr. Holzloehner, reference above, dated 24 February 1942, for work on the following problem: "The effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects."
Now did this order for research to Professor Holzloehner initiate from your office?
A: I cannot tell you that from my own knowledge.
DR. TIPPS: Mr. President, in order to avoid any misunderstanding I may comment on that document as follows:
It was quoted here:
The effect of freezing on warm blooded subjects.
Subject, however, must be understood as meaning the human being in the common usage of the English language. Perhaps the Interpreter would be kind enough to confirm that warm blooded beings as it is stated in the German document book, in other words "Warmblueter" does not limit itself to the human beings but also extends to the animal. In other words, it means every being which has warm blood flowing in its veins. I am making this remark now because the very same misunderstanding arose recently during direct examination and on that occasion the interpreter was kind enough to confirm that this translation was not correct. It should read, and I quote:
On warm blooded beings.
Perhaps I may ask the interpreter whether he thinks this interpretation is more suitable.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Interpreters give their opinion on the matter?
INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor, the other day defense counsel asked for my opinion when I suggested that interpretation to him, it should be warm blooded beings, instead of warm blooded subjects.
Q: I now continue, doctor. It is immaterial to Prosecution whether that is subject or whether it is being, I might add. But did this research order to Professor Dr. Holzloehner initiate from Anthony's office?
A: This research assignment was handled by the referat Anthony because certainly becomes apparent from the number of that research assignment above there. In addition I already mentioned repeatedly that aviation medical assignments were necessarily handled in the referat for aviation medicine. Here we were clearly with such a problem.
Q: Now, we will note the next paragraph, doctor, which reads as follows:
At the proposal of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher appropriate examinations were made of human beings, and in agreement with the Reichsfuehrer SS suitable facilities were used for the examinations.
It continues on:
In order to carry out these examinations a research group "Hardships at Sea" was set up, consisting of Profess Dr. Holzloehner as leader and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke.
Now, might I gather from reading this document that the referat for aviation medicine was fully aware of the activities in which Rascher, Finke, and Holzloehner were engaged in at Dachau or might I assume that their work was merely working on actual cases of persons rescued from the sea?
A: I didn't quite understand your question. Are you asking me now about the meaning of the research group "Distress at Sea"?
Q: Yes.
A: I cannot clearly answer your question from my own knowledge because I don't know whether at this time, in the summer of 1942, Professors Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke were at the channel coast and were working on "distress at sea" questions. I know that a number of other researchers were sent to the channel by Anthony and Hippke in order to gain experience. I do not know whether Holzloehner, Finke and Rascher were among them.
Q: Well, then I submit to you, doctor, this possibility. Assume for the moment this research group of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, as outlined in this document, were working as a research group on the sea shore, on the coast, with actual cases of persons rescued from sea. In as much as the document is signed by Anthony would you assume that Anthony was aware of the work being performed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher?
A: Let me say at first that this letter was not signed by Anthony. Anthony only certified the true copy.
Q: I realize that, doctor. He signed the true copy. He must have read it to sign it. Do you think that he had knowledge of those activities?
A: I would assume so because I have made a little file notice about the conversation between Hippke and Rascher which I handed to Anthony when he came back from his vacation. He then continued to deal with this matter.
Q: Then on the face of this document it indicates to us that it originated from Anthony's office and this further that out — we see Anthony's signature appearing on the document. Now, isn't it true that Anthony's office ordered Professor Holzloehner to work on this particular subject and, in fact, set up this research group of Holzloehner, Rascher, and Finke?
A: I am sure that the referat was not in a position to do that. Only Hippke was in a position to issue such an order.
Q: But, doctor, it has the initials and the code, file numbers, of Anthony's office on the order. What are they doing there? Hippke doesn't write out an order and put down the file numbers of Becker-Freyseng's office. He puts down his own file numbers. It states here in the first paragraph that:
The Inspectorate gave an order for research to Professor Holzloehner, reference above,
and the reference that appears above is reference No. 1 and it has #55 there as the file numbers of Anthony's section, isn't that true?
A: No, that is not true.
Q: I suppose that you are going to tell me now reference No. 2 is the reference referred to in that paragraph. That is the only way that you can slip out, doctor.
A: No, no, no. I think in my direct examination and also yesterday I discussed the file notices in great detail. I may repeat once more. The reference No. 55 and IIb show that this assignment was worked upon in the referat for Aviation Medicine and I repeatedly stated that all the original research assignments as far as they were not mere continuations had to be signed by the Medical Inspectorate or the Chief of the Medical Services.
Q: Well now this report that is mentioned here in this document is undoubtedly the report which Holzloehner was to deliver at the October meeting. Is that a correct assumption on my part, doctor?
A: What passage of the document are you referring to?
Q: I am referring to the sixth paragraph which reads as follows:
The research documents and an extensive report will be presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. It is requested that the originals or copies of the report and of the documents be put at the disposal of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.
It is intended to make the results, in the form of an extract, accessible to experts at a conference which will take place in Nurnberg on 26 and 27 October 1942. The daily schedule of the conference is enclosed.
Now, then, as a result of this order from Hippke Holzloehner, Rascher, and Finke are to give a report that is a concise report at the Nurnberg Freezing Conference in October, isn't that the gist of this document?
A: Were you talking about an oral report? Or a brief report? Yes, in this letter by the Reichsfuehrer-SS's permission is asked that the results of the experiments be published at Nurnberg.
Q: I see. Well, now we will proceed to the report which was published at Nurnberg. This is Document NO-401, I believe.
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: It is to be found on page 79, of your Honor's Document Book, Document Book III, Prosecution Exhibit #93. If you will turn to the second page of this report, doctor, the section referred to as the "Contents". We go down to IV, headed "Treatment of Frozen Persons" and we see there the names of Jarisch, Weltz, and Holzloehner. Are those the same gentlemen we have been discussing here this morning?
A: I only know one Professor Jarisch and this is the one. Then we have Professor Weltz here who is sitting in the dock and then there is Professor Holzloehner whom we have discussed here.
Q: Now we go down to VI which is entitled "Measures to combat Thirst". We see there the name Schaefer. Is that the same as the defendant Schaefer?
A: Yes, it is the same.
Q: Schaefer was at this meeting, was he?
A: Yes, he was present during that meeting and he held a lecture about combat of thirst.
Q: Did he participate in any other phase of this meeting?
A: Well I am sure he didn't participate in any of the discussions. I cannot say whether he was present during the lectures. At any rate I don't remember it. He had never had anything to do with the questions of freezing and cold.
Q: Now we go down to VII and under there we see 5, the name of Huebner. Is that one and the same Huebner as the Huebner implicated with Eppinger in the sea water experiments?
A: No, not only is it a different man but his name is different. This man here is H-u-e-b-n-e-r and the Professor whom my department chief asked for advice about the sea water experiments is not Huebner, it is Neubner. They are two entirely different persons.
Q: Now, the name just above that, #4. Doerfler. Who is that? Do you know that gentleman.
A: I think I have seen him once. That was on the occasion of that Nuernberg meeting. He was a captain in the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe and had been committed as a physician near the channel coast in sea distress service. That is all I can tell you about him.
Q: We note on the next page, doctor, the first name is Anthony.
A: Yes.
Q: And thereunder, we go down to #7. That is your name.
A: Yes.
Q: We go down to #11 and we find the name Buechner.
A: Buechner, yes.
Q: Do you know that gentleman?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he the gentleman that worked with Professor Weltz?
A: I know of no such collaboration.
Q: Was he one of the lecturers at the Luftgau [Air District] School?
A: At first, I never in my life heard about a Luftgau school. Secondly, I never heard that Buechner was ever a lecturer in any institute of the Luftgau. There must be some misunderstanding.
Q: Do you recall, in Rascher's document to the Reichsfuehrer, which was 1602-PS in Document Book No. 2, where Rascher stated:
For the time being I have been assigned to Luftgau Commando No. 7, Munich, for a medical selection course?
Maybe I erroneously called that a school. I'm sorry. I ask you now, was Buechner one of the lecturers at this Luftgau Commando No. 7 Medical Selection Course?
A: I never heard anything about that. I really don't know.
Q: And then we go down to #22 and see the name Finke. Is that one and the same Finke as mentioned in the other documents here?
A: Yes, that probably is the case because, up to now, I have only heard of one Finke.
Q: Now, Doctor, when you heard these lectures, particularly the lecture given by Holzloehner, I understand that it wasn't possible to ascertain that the work upon which his report was based was work on experimental subjects.
Is that your position here?
A: I have stated in great detail that one had to deduce from this Holzloehner lecture that in his results we were concerned with conclusions derived from a combination of practical experiences with sea distress, experiments on human beings, and experiments on animals.
Q: I see. Well now, I want to recall the testimony of Professor Schroeder wherein he said, on page 3625 of the official transcript, that he based his statement solely on Holzloehner's report which was the only thing that interested him. In answer to a question by Mr. McHaney wherein Mr. McHaney asked:
I think you stated to your defense counsel that it was impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had been carried out, but rather you thought they were clinical observations made on people fished out of the North Sea. Is that right?
And I repeat Schroeder's answer:
Yes, I based my testimony solely on Holzloehner's report which was the only thing that interested me.
Now, do you concur with Professor Schroeder that, after seeing the Holzloehner report, that you could only ascertain that the results thereof were obtained from practical experiences and not from experimentation?
A: Yes, I may remind you that the situation under which Professor Schroeder read the report and under which I just heard of it orally were entirely different. I knew beforehand, by virtue of my participation in Hippke's and Rascher's conference, that these experiments were planned. Professor Schroeder, on the other hand, did not know that. He merely knew the fact that Holzloehner had gained experiences in practical sea distress service. In other words, our points of departure are entirely different.
Q: Well now, you testified here that you felt the reason why the witness Lutz was in a position to ascertain the method used by Holzloehner was because of his extensive knowledge of freezing problems and that other people, such as Schroeder and yourself, and, I suppose, any other medical man not specializing in this field, would be unable to ascertain the same things that Lutz ascertained.
Is that correct?
A: Yes, that is correct. I may point out to you once more that Professor Schroeder wasn't even present during that meeting, but only read the printed report about half a year later.
Q: Well, reading the printed report would be to his advantage in being able to ascertain the methods used in the experiments, wouldn't it? I would think that you could gather more from reading the report than from sitting down listening to an oral report, or would it be vice versa, Doctor?
A: I may draw your attention to the fact that on the 26th and 27th of October there was no written report available, but that there was only the oral report by Holzloehner.
Q: How do you know that?
A: Because I heard the report. I listened to it. I have already said so.
Q: How do you know he didn't have the written one available?
A: At any rate, I didn't have a written report available. I never saw one except the one that was later printed.
Q: Let's go on, Doctor.
Now, as I understand it, you have stated here that the method of rapid re-warming was not new. Was nothing new. That, in fact, it was a very old method. Is that right?
A: No, you misunderstood me.
Q: Well, do you know, as a matter of fact, that the method of rapid re-warming is a very old method and that it was first worked out in 1880 by a Russian doctor named Lepczinsky?
A: Yes, that is true and it is included in this report. This method, as it frequently occurs not only in medicine, was entirely forgotten so that decades later nobody else thought about this quick rewarming method. We are here concerned with a re-discovery which so often occurs in human history.
Q: That's true. It may well have been a re-discovery, but it had been discovered in 1880 by Lepczinsky, had it not?
A: Yes, it says so somewhere here.
Q: Well now, Doctor Weltz here had admitted repeatedly that, in his own experimental work on animals, that, in addition to Lepczinksy's earlier experiences, the problem was fully settled and was ready to be applied to human beings, hasn't he, without further experimentation on human beings under artificial conditions?
A: I believe Professor Weltz said so here. What question do you wish me to answer now?
Q: Well, in view of Professor Weltz's testimony and in view of the fact that Lepczinsky had founded this method of re-warming — rapid rewarming — in 1880, wasn't it ready to be applied now for purposes of therapeutic trial on people actually exposed to shock from exposure to cold without any further experimentation on human beings?
A: I don't believe that any medical authority anywhere in the world would have been prepared to introduce Rascher's method of re-warming officially without first experimenting upon human beings. During the slow re-warming—
Q: (Interrupting) Just a moment, Doctor, you're trying to get away from me. Rascher's method? That was Holzloehner's, Finke's, and Rascher's method, wasn't it? It wasn't Rascher's alone. Rascher had an order to experiment with Holzloehner and Finke.
A: I don't know exactly what assignment Holzloehner had received from Hippke. I assumed that this was the main assignment.
Q: Well now, you have mentioned, in the course of your examination, that these experiments — these freezing experiments — were decidedly useful and you quoted Harper's Magazine wherein it said that Dr. Alexander had found the method of re-warming a useful one and reported it as such. However, Harper's didn't quote that passage correctly. But, nevertheless, it was Lepczinsky's method of rapid and intensive re-warming that was found in the Rascher experiments, wasn't it? It wasn't Weltz's and Holzloehner's and Rascher's finding or discovery.
It was nothing but a reassurance of Lepczinsky's method, was it not?
A: I cannot reply to that question because I neither concerned myself with freezing research generally, nor did I read the paper by Professor Lepczinsky, and I don't know exactly what he suggested.
Q: You concerned yourself with it here for nearly a day on direct; since you exhibited such an exhaustive knowledge in the matter I think it necessary for you to take a stand here?
A: Only on the basis of the documents.
Q: Is it necessary to perform experiments on human beings to reassure the Lepczinsky method?
A: As I imagine the situation once more I could affirm the situation clearly.
Q: Well, now after hearing this report and the reassurance that the Luftwaffe do to apply that method? To be sure some 100 gentlemen, as set forth in this document listened to this report by Holzloehner, what did they do about it, did they use it?
A: Well, let me point out to you that during this meeting a number of researchers held lectures on the basis of a number of experiments and all arrived at the same result, which was finally confirmed by Professor Holzloehner. Professor Holzloehner's lecture was only the final confirmation, and I know that the Medical Inspectorate afterwards introduced quick rewarming as the only decisive method of treatment.
Q: Well, now, Doctor, what is bothering me bothering me terribly is the fact that extensive research was conducted at the Dachau Concentration Camp on rapid rewarming, — testimony here in this trial shows that many deaths occurred. There isn't one shred of evidence available in this Tribunal produced by the defendants that indicates to any degree that these methods as discovered by Holzloehner, Rascher and Finke were ever applied by the Luftwaffe or by the Army or by the Navy, yet you have taken the stand here and attempted to introduce Harper's Magazine to show that these experiments were justified and that we, as a matter of fact used them in the United States Navy; why didn't you use them in the German Army and Navy?
A: The method was used from 1942 on.
Q: Well, all that Schroeder could tell us about it was that someone in an air sea station in Greece requested a bathtub which as a matter of fact was never delivered, because of subsequent retreat from Greece, but he didn't tell us anything about the actual use of the method; there is no evidence here that you ever used the method; what was the reason for this exhaustive research if you never intended to use the method, and in fact never used the method, apparently?
A: We never tried to prove that. This is the first time that the Prosecution has raised the charge that this method was never applied.
Q: I haven't raised the charge, Doctor, I am merely seeking information from you, inasmuch as you have definitely taken up the time of this Tribunal to explain greatly the value of these experiments; now what was the value to the German Luftwaffe, to the German Army and the German Navy; you haven't been able to show us that?
A: I never tried to show that. I don't consider that relevant, I and my defense counsel. If I were to go into everything connected with the trial from a scientific point of view then the time I have used so far would be completely inadequate, but I am quite willing to bring a number of witnesses to prove that quick rewarming was applied.
I believe that will be quite easy to prove. As to the Professor Lepczinsky —
Q: Now you are getting at it; you are coming along with me. Then the method was actually applied, the method of Lepczinsky was actually applied in the German Wehrmacht?
A: I said before I didn't know the Lepczinsky method. I never read his paper on the subject.
Q: Then the method rediscovered by Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke was actually used, and adopted by the German Wehrmacht, is that correct?
A: I am quite certain of it. I was never present myself, because I wasn't working specifically on these questions, but I believe I can find people who will be able to confirm that the method was actually used.
Q: Well, now, Doctor, in regard to the position that Schroeder was unable to ascertain from Holzloehner's report, that the results were secured from experimentation, I have a few questions to put to you; now, on the second page of Holzloehner's report, that is page 10 of the document itself, page 42 of the original, that is document No. 401, that will be found on page 88 of the English Document book III, in the second paragraph on that page, Holzloehner speaks of human curves, "human curves." It is possible, Doctor, to obtain curves which require special measurements from people floating in the sea; don't you think it would be a lot to actually obtain one good measurement under such circumstances?
A: Let me point out that these cooling curves very obviously refer to the animals.
Professor Holzloehner writes:
In the case of water temperature under 15 degrees of interest to the Sea Distress Service, all reflect regulation appears only slightly in the usual test animals. The freezing curves to a great extent resemble the physical model which can only be compared with many reservations to human curves because of their different measurements and differing constant temperature.
This shows quite clearly that these curves were obtained from animals. Those are the experiments that Professor Holzloehner mentioned on the previous page, and now some other results and constant figures of normal body temperature, and freezing point of fat, and so forth, that for these reasons the experiments on animals and the physical context cannot be applied to human beings.
Q: Now, this report of Dr. Holzloehner refers to statistics found on rescued persons from the sea, refers to statistics found from experimentation on animals and the report is more or less a comparison, is it not, and that is I assume what Professor Schroeder thought when he read this report, that the mention regarding human beings referred to those rescued at sea, and not to actual experimental subjects, and herein he refers to human curves, and data concerning human curves, unless it was on a human being. I would think that would be elementary, wouldn't it, Doctor?
A: That is not elementary, and it is not true, because such cooling curves can, of course, be obtained from blood, it can be determined how long a ship wrecked person has been in the water, and then I can enter this time on a curve and the temperature which I have obtained from the boat.
These were covered boats with cabins, and I could measure the temperature. I could correlate the time with the temperature and after I do this in 10 or 20 cases I obtain a curve, but what Professor Holzloehner says here clearly refers to animals experiments.
Q: Let's refer to the next paragraph; I wonder if this refers to animals experiments. The next paragraph states:
The blood count, as well as the changes in the blood analysis were also tested in such severe freezing.
Is that referring to animals, to the dogs and cats he mentioned? That has nothing to do with the test on human beings which he refers to later in the report?
A: May I read the context?
Q: Yes, that is paragraph 3 of page 10 of page 42 of the original?
A: Yes, I would like to read the context. It reads:
The blood count, as well as the changes in the blood analysis were also tested in such severe freezing. These investigations yielded few new results and they correspond to the results of slow freezing or the results determined from local freezing. Among these changes, the considerable rise in viscosity in dogs and cats are mentioned, which makes it obvious that they were animal experiments.
Q: Alright, let us refer to the next page. This will be on page 11, which is page 89 of the document book in English. Refer to the third paragraph from the top, pardon me, Doctor, we will back up to the second paragraph which says as follows:
It has now been possible to conduct a series of investigations of human beings who were rescued after having been in cold water for a long time. The relevant statements we owe to the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke. They refer to a stay in water of 2 to 12 degrees.
There is no question but that the relating facts in this report were facts deduced from a series of investigations on human beings who were rescued after being in cold water for a long time; is that correct?
A: Yes, that is true. I heard later that Dr. Finke was one of Holzloehner's assistants at the sea rescue station in Besan. I am convinced that part of the findings were based on actual experience in practice in rescue from the sea.
Q: Let us examine a few of these pages, Doctor, the next paragraph Holzloehner says:
The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders the movement of the arms especially increasingly difficult.
This affects respiration also: inspiration is deepened and expiration is delayed.
Do you mean to say now that during rescue operations one would actually watch a man fall into the water, then sit by and do nothing for five or ten minutes until he becomes rigid, until his respiration slows.
A: No, but one does pull a man out of the water with rigor of the muscles and slow breathing. Such experiences have occurred everywhere. In my direct examination I spoke of this same experience of rigor within five or ten minutes by Captain Mazer of the American service. The same experience has been had by every rescue service in the world.
Q: Now further down in the paragraph we find the words and this is the sentence after the one I just read — we find the words:
The rigor is a conditional reflex and not, as many persons apparently think, a contraction of the corresponding muscles due to cold. It ceases spontaneously at death.
Now, do you mean to imply seriously, Doctor, that you as a member of the armed forces would expect one of your medical officers to treat members of the armed forces that way or that they would sit there and let the ill man die in the water so they could take measurements, make observations and investigations?
A: These sentences do not indicate that either. I should like to refer to the first paragraph of Holzloehner's lecture, which reads:
Observations by the Sea Distress Service have shown that the reduction in body temperature proceeds very rapidly in the case of persons in distress at sea subjected to water temperature below 15 degrees.
As unconsciousness or even death can occur already after half an hour, the possibility of using plans and boats is greatly decreased. Moreover, observations of mass catastrophes (the sinking of transports or war ships) revealed that even a rather long time after the rescue, danger to life still exists. Thus, sudden deaths were observed 20 minutes to 1½ hours after rescue, which until now have remained unexplained. (Collapse after rescue.)
Those are the deaths which our Doctors observed.
They observed that when death occurred, the rigor suddenly ceased. I myself never observed that, I was never present on such occasions.
Q: Let us go to the next paragraph, Doctor, here is the most preposterous and obvious passage. This is the beginning of the next paragraph, No. 43 of the original, page 11 of the document and page 89 of the document book. This states as follows:
With a drop of the rectal temperature to 31 degrees, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to a deep cold-induced anesthesia if the decline reaches below 30 degrees.
Now, Doctor, to have made this observation it would have been next to impossible during an air sea rescue operation; wouldn't it?
A: No, not at all.
Q: Well now in the first place to measure the rectal temperature of a man bobbing in the high seas would be quite a job, wouldn't it?
A: No, not at all. That was something that was done very frequently.
Q: What did you do, Doctor? Did you just go by the man floating in the sea in a rescue boat, come up to him and instead of throwing him a life line, throw him a thermometer and ask him to place it in his rectum?
A: No, but the temperature was taken after the people were in the life boat. I have already said that the rescue boats were big motor boats with covered cabins.
Q: Now, Doctor, just a moment, just a moment. In taking the man in the life boat to perform this; what did you do after this, put him in the life boat and then throw him back in the water?
A: That is an interpretation of yours, which does not correspond to real conditions. What we have here is that when the temperature drops to below 30 degrees there can be a cold anesthesia and one need not be an expert on cold to know this. Any doctor will recognize, that there are two possible explanations. One is that there were observations on various people, it does not say that these observations were all made on the same man. Secondly, an even more possible solution is that when one person was rescued and a temperature of 30 degrees was taken and his temperature continued to fall while he was in the boat, that is the new fact which has been discussed by American as well as German experts during this war and that unless one applies warmth to the rescued people immediately but simply covers him, as is done in the life boat, the temperature continues to fall. One has no need to put the person back in the ice water.
Q: I am glad that you have a definite opinion on that Doctor. Let us look further on down on this page, which will be on the next page of the document book, page 43. This is the top paragraph. The next sentence therein, it states:
It is certain that the rapidity of the drop of temperature increases when the neck and occiput are washed by water.
Do you see it?
A: Yes, I see it.
Q: It would take pretty careful observations from a boat, a rescue boat, to find that out on a man floating in the sea, but it would be pretty easy to do it on a man floating in a tub at the experimental station in Dachau; would it not? Wouldn't you have to follow him around in the boat pretty much to see how much of his neck and occiput was washed by the water?
A: This observations means that in the German Luftwaffe, as well as in the German Navy, there were various models of life preservers. One model was constructed in such a way that the person had the back of his head and the back of his neck out of the water, that is the back of his neck was protected. The other model was constructed in such a way that the back of the neck was not protected. Nothing was more simple to see what happened to the people wearing one model compared to people wearing the other model.
Besides, I can point out that Mr. Rascher, after Holzloehner's lecture, made a remark in that direction saying that experiments had been carried out on this subject but according to what Mr. Rascher said at that time and what he wrote, they were completely harmless. He writes that the cooling of the back of the neck alone, even over a number of hours, causes only a slight change of body temperature up to 1 degree Celsius. According to what Rascher reported, it was a very slight result for this experiment and one must assume that Holzloehner's remarks had refer to his actual experience in sea-rescue service.
Q: Well, let us go to the passage on page 44 of the original document, page 14 of the translation. This is on page 93 of the document book. You note here the following language in the first paragraph on that page. The sentence, which is seven lines down from the top, reads as follows:
The good results with quick warming obtained in experiments with animals encouraged a corresponding procedure with human beings. These experiments showed that baths with a water temperature of 40 degrees not only accelerate the return to normal temperature and absorb the sudden dangerous falls of temperature after rescue, but may also be of life-saving effect should the heartbeats begin to stop.
Now in this pointed discussion, the author was even far more outspoken, was he not, which I understand was an abbreviated and expurgated edition of what he actually said at the meeting; is that right? What did he say at the meeting to elaborate on this point in the corresponding procedure on human beings to be used, inasmuch as they found such good results on their work on animals?
A: I believe that is best shown by the fact that Mr. Rascher had an order from Himmler to present the results of the experiment as a top secret matter. What Holzloehner said about the experiments as I said in my direct examination, what I took as referring to experiments, was this paragraph here where it said expressly that no danger was ever observed to persons treated in this way. As for the other experiments concerning which Rascher sent a report to Himmler and which report to Himmler is signed by Holzloehner and Rascher and Finke, there was said nothing at Nurnberg, nor did Holzloehner, Finke or Rascher say anything about it. Not only I but ninety other people heard it and most of the others are at liberty today and some of them have very high positions.
Q: Well now let us turn to another section of this report, which is on page 43 of the original, page 12 of the — this will be found on page 90 of the document book 3, the passage contained in the second paragraph from the top, five lines down, beginning in the middle of the paragraph and the middle of the sentence line, wherein I will quote, wherefrom I will quote:
Noticeable and important is a great increase in viscosity of up to 7.8. This increase appears very early, that is, already with a body temperature of 35 degrees. These increases are greater than those found in animal experiments. With dogs for instance, an increase of more than 6.2 was never observed under corresponding circumstances.
Now, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, in order to determine how high the viscosity of the blood can be, wouldn't it take a considerable amount of measuring?
A: No, I don't know how Holzloehner did it.
Q: Well now, doctor, that would test ever your ingenuity, you are a pretty capable fellow, to take one sample large enough to determine the viscosity of the blood from a man floating in the ocean next to a boat, let alone sufficient for measurements —
A: The measurements would not have to be made on a man swimming beside the boat. Either a small amount of blood is taken from a man who has been brought into the boat or else the blood —
Q: Well you do not accomplish this from your experiment of you do not accomplish what you are looking for, do you?
You did not find out the necessary information from that manner, did you, if you just pulled him in, you can't be certain how it reacts, you have to determine how an animal rescued would react, in comparison to the reaction of a human being. You have to have some sort of comparison. Isn't that what Holzloehner, Finke and Rascher did at Dachau?
A: I never heard anything about that, but the purpose of Holzloehner's work at Dachau, let me point out the next sentence which reads:
With dogs, for instance, an increase of more than 6.2. was never observed under corresponding circumstances.
I am convinced that Mr. Holzloehner made his careful tests with animals and that with human beings he carried out merely a few practical tests and I am convinced that the measurement of viscosity is very simple even in practice. In my direct examination I discussed this point. I referred to the report of Captain or Major Mazer, who performed almost exactly the same tests in the American sea rescue service, blood concentration tests, and in effect found out exactly the same thing.
Q: Well, doctor, let's turn to another section here, this is page 15 of the report under discussion, note the name Rascher. Here Rascher states in this paragraph, which is page 93 of the document book, and I quote; the sentence beginning with:
After taking alcohol, body temperature decreases at a quicker pace.
Does the interpreter have that?
After taking daxtropur the decrease is slower than with the experiments in both sober and alcoholic condition. Hot infusions, (10% dextro-solution, physiolog, table salt-solution, tutofusin, physiolog. Table salt solution with pancortex) were successful only for a time.
Now from reading that doctor, do you mean to say that you would issue alcohol to airmen just on the chance they might fall in the sea so that you could make comparisons with other airmen who hadn't taken alcohol?
A: I should like to point out something and I am quite willing to bring proof of this too. In the emergency equipment of the Luftwaffe, good whiskey.
Q: Then when you pulled a man in from the water did you ask each man if he had taken a drink yet?
A: Yes, in many cases we would ask that because the doctors held the point of view that alcohol is harmful in such cases. From 1943 approximately on the alcohol was removed from the emergency equipment against the resistance of non-medical men. I am quite willing to bring proof of this too.
Q: Now assume for a moment, just assume for the moment hypothetically you were working with Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke, and this report was the results of your work, would you be willing to assume full responsibility for everything contained in Holzloehner's report as being completely on the level, nothing criminal about it. I think you are being a bit naive, doctor, here is Lutz who came here and testified it was obvious just what the report meant.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, in the direct examination Mr. Hardy reproached me with spending too much time on a subject. I went into too much detail with these questions, he said. Now he is going into them again. I have not objected but now Mr. Hardy comes with a completely hypothetical question. He, as well as the Tribunal and the defendant know that this is not true. I believe in answering this question "what would have happened if" — is a purely hypothetical question and will not get us anywhere. I should like to object to this question as completely irrelevant.
MR. HARDY: Having learned a great deal during the course of this trial, I have just finished a subject and will go on to something else.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Doctor, let's turn to page 127 of the document book, which is Exhibit 106, document No. 268. This is a document which originated from Anthony's office, which is signed by Professor Hippke. Somebody wrote that, somebody in Anthony's office must have written it or it wouldn't have Anthony's code letter on it, because as you say Hippke did most of his work without referring to Anthony if he chose to do it. Now this letter reads as follows:
A: I am sorry. I never said that. I said that Hippke sometimes failed to consult the referat but I never said in most of his work.
Q: Do you think now, in as much as the code letters appear, that in connection with this document Hippke referred it to the referat?
A: I not only believe Hippke referred the letter to the referat but I think this letter was worked on in the referat. I myself did not work on it. I saw it here for the first time.
Q: Let's read it, doctor, quote:
The experiments conducted in Dachau concerning protective measures against the effects of freezing on the human body by immersion in cold water have lead to results of practical use. They were conducted by Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke and Dr. Rascher in cooperation with the SS, and are now finished. The results was reported upon by those who worked on them during a conference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardships on 26 and 27 October 1942 at Nurnberg. The detailed report on the conference is at present in state of preparation.
I think you most gratefully for the great assistance that cooperation of the SS has meant for us in conducting the experiments, and beg you to express our thanks too, to the commander of the Dachau camp.
Heil Hitler Prof. Dr. Hippke.
Now whatever impression was given to the listeners at the Nurnberg conference after hearing the report, it is a fact, is it not, that the reports were based on experiments upon human beings at the Dachau concentration camp and here is the "Thank you" note from Hippke?
A: In my direct examination I have already said that I held the opinion from the very beginning that Holzloehner's report was just a compilation and that in the course of the compilation he induced the results of the Dachau experiments in his report. I never doubted it.
Q: Well, Dr. Lutz had no difficulty in ascertaining that either, did he?
A: Let me refer to three things: first of all Lutz himself worked on the cold question; second he worked in the very institute where considerable work was done on the same question; third, according to what he said, he knew Mr. Rascher much better than I did. If he read something else from Holzloehner's report and Rascher's remark than I did I am not surprised.
Q: Of course, you can recall that Dr. Lutz maintained in the course of his examination here that an average medical man could have ascertained the same thing, didn't he say that?
A: I don't understand your question.
Q: Didn't Dr. Lutz say here that any physician or medical man, regardless of his specialty, that is, he didn't necessarily have to be a specialist in shock from exposure to cold, could have been any man, if he had slight knowledge of medicine could ascertain from the reports that were heard at the October meeting that the experiments were made on human beings and were not just air rescue practical tests?
A: No, Dr. Lutz did not say that. In the course of my direct examination I repeated exactly what Lutz said. He said he believed it was clear to most people that is to say, at least that it was not quite clearly expressed and that was his own personal opinion. What he realized might not apply to other people.
Q: Let us turn to the yellow jaundice complex, doctor. This is Document NO-137 which is on page 6 of Document Book 8.
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: Well, now we note here under 1 — the subject is yellow fever vaccines and we find there three references to the code letters of the office of Anthony. Is that correct? We see this #55 on three occasions there.
A: I am sorry, under yellow fever vaccine, is that what you mean?
Q: Under arabic number 1 —
A: Yes, you only see two numbers which do refer to referat. The first says 55, etc. 2 II B and then 55/14 — the rest is missing. I don't know what the original says.
Q: Those references, be there one, two, or three — refer to Anthony's office, is that right? It is very simple, answer it. Do they or don't they?
A: If I have to say yes or no I will say no. They mean merely that there is a research assignment so that if the files are looked for in the office of the Medical Inspectorate the registry people know where to look — under file #55.
Q: Let's straighten this out. What is #55? What does it mean?
A: In the correspondence of the German Wehrmacht there was a so-called Wehrmacht file plan.
Q: Let's forget that a moment. What do numbers 55 mean. You can answer in three words. You have answered it in direct examination. I want to hear it again. I don't remember what you said. Doesn't 55 2 II B refer to the office of Anthony?
A: No. This No. 55 you will find in correspondence of the entire Luftwaffe and the entire German Wehrmacht where Anthony means nothing at all —
Q: 2 II B refers to Anthony's office, doesn't it?
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am afraid I must object to this type of questioning by Mr. Hardy. He has interrupted the witness three times now. If Mr. Hardy will let Doctor Becker-Freyseng explain everything will be clear. I don't want to attack Mr. Hardy personally by any means but I think this continual interruption does not serve the cause.
MR. HARDY: Since the objection has been raised, Your Honors, I will instruct the Tribunal to instruct the witness to answer my question what does 2 II B mean? He has testified on direct examination that they mean Anthony's office. He is here under oath and now he says they do not mean Anthony's office and I wish to clear up the confusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Prosecution asked the witness what the number 55 meant and interrupted the witness before he answered by asking what the letters 2 II B mean. Will counsel again propound his question to the witness?
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: What is the code initial 2 II B refer to, doctor?
A: That is the registration abbreviation for the referat Aviation Medicine.
Q: And at that time 7 October 1943 you were assistant referent?
A: Yes.
Q: And #1 in this document refers to yellow fever vaccine?
A: Yes.
Q: And "2" in this document refers to spotted fever vaccine?
A: Yes.
Q: And the code letters 2 II B appear there?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: And so on down through the document?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: That is all I have in that complex, Your Honor. However, I have one request to make of the Tribunal before we adjourn today. Dr. Tipp has requested that he be permitted to see the defendant Becker-Freyseng, this evening. I have agreed that he could see Becker-Freyseng, of course adhering to legal ethics and not making any reference to the questions being considered in the course of this cross-examination. Dr. Steinbauer has a problem to take up with the Tribunal before adjournment.
DR. STEINBAUER (For the Defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, the court has approved for me a witness named Dr. Rolf Jaeger. This witness has been brought to Nurnberg. This morning the General Secretary's office, Mr. Wartena, told me that Dr. Jaeger is the head of a British Hospital in Graz and the British Military Government in Austria have urgently asked to have him returned. He has to be taken back Thursday morning and I should like permission to call this witness tomorrow when the examination of Becker-Freyseng is concluded. Mr. Hardy, to whom I have told this, thought I should submit an affidavit.
I would be very glad to fulfill Mr. Hardy's wish but could not do so; I merely promise that I will be very brief. If he will do the same thing we will gain what we would otherwise have lost.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for Prosecution any objection to calling this witness at the closing of the testimony of the defendant Becker-Freyseng?
MR. HARDY: On the statement of defense counsel, Your Honor, it appears to be that in as much as this witness will only testify as to the rank and organization within which the defendant Beiglboeck was stationed or where his orders came from I don't think it necessary to take up the time of the Tribunal. I understand the witness has nothing to add concerning the sea water experiments of any of the plans or enterprises connected therewith. He will merely testify as to superior orders of Beiglboeck and I feel for my part that an affidavit could accomplish that object without taking up the time of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand from defense counsel that defense counsel desires to put the witness on the stand and not file an affidavit of the witness, is that correct?
A: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be heard after the close of the testimony of defendant Becker-Freyseng tomorrow.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is now in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.